FWIW, the hottest AP in the world, Iwan Baan (who amongst other things won the first Julius Schulman Award and look at his client list) uses DSLRs. He has a much looser style than traditional APs (like me). Who first informed me about Iwan Baan and his huge influence on AP? the CEO of Hedrich-Blessing..........enough said?

Willow, I think we should concentrate more on creating better images and learning from each other rather than creating walls among us.You had great opinions here coming from all sort of professionals. We have to value that. Pedro, In the film days, 4x5 people used to make fun of others not using Sinars and Broncolor lighting. 21/4 had the laugh if you used Mamiya or Bronica and not Hasselblad.Now is the war of sensor sizes and megapixels. The only one making profit of this none senses are the commercial brands.I value this forum and its members from which I have learned through the years. There are actually very few forums where we can go.ACH

I ve got the Rm3di, and shneiders, best investment i ve ever made, however, i ve had a cloud in order (and paid) for 6 months, not yet out on market, As Martin wants it to be perfect ! So the cloud could be a W8 if you buy now :p...

Your shooting style affects the choice too of course. We who reply usually assume that our own shooting style is the best and is what everyone should strive for . For example, I can't live without lens movements, I like strict perspectives with perfect vertical and horizontal lines indoors (prefer slight converging outdoors), i e both rise/fall and left/right shift required, sometimes simultaneously. Some rarely do movements at all and choose to turn the camera instead or place the camera such that shift is not required. You can do great images with both styles. The less interested you are in movements the less of an advantage a tech camera will be.

FWIW, the hottest AP in the world, Iwan Baan (who amongst other things won the first Julius Schulman Award and look at his client list) uses DSLRs. He has a much looser style than traditional APs (like me). Who first informed me about Iwan Baan and his huge influence on AP? the CEO of Hedrich-Blessing..........enough said?

I was shooting on the same assignment as Iwan Baan some month ago, and had the chance to talk to him about his shooting style and equiptment. You are right that he is the hottest AP in the world with an impressive client list. Iwan comes from a Photo Journalistic bacground, hence his photographis approach and talent for including people in his images.

He works with a 1Dx, the 17 and 24 TS and two zooms 24-70 and 70-200. Interesting he shoots handheld 90% of the times and just bumps ISO up, he is not afraid of 6400 og higher ISO, he never uses any lights. This is complete opposite of normal AP working with MFD, pancake cameras shooting with tripod and 50 ISO and bringing ton of lightig equiptment.

I think the AP business and style changes at this moment more to a Iwan Baan style, and was I to reinvest just for AP I would not go the MF way. I am with Stefan Marquardt using my canon for 99% of my commercial Architectural work, and using my IQ160 for personal work.

I think this is real life experience for European Architectural Photography, you can simply cover more grounds with the Canon as opposed to the MF back shooting style (always shooting the damn plexy for LCC). This is not a war between DSLR and MFD backs, a lot of professional photographers would have both and choose what is the best for the job. In my case I choose the Canon 99% of the time for AP. I choose the Canon for speed and flexibility AND the post production time is 1/3 of the Phase.

Willow I hope you can use this info. I think traditional AP is changing towards a more loos and flexible style aka Iwan Baan.

I was shooting on the same assignment as Iwan Baan some month ago, and had the chance to talk to him about his shooting style and equiptment. You are right that he is the hottest AP in the world with an impressive client list. Iwan comes from a Photo Journalistic bacground, hence his photographis approach and talent for including people in his images.

He works with a 1Dx, the 17 and 24 TS and two zooms 24-70 and 70-200. Interesting he shoots handheld 90% of the times and just bumps ISO up, he is not afraid of 6400 og higher ISO, he never uses any lights. This is complete opposite of normal AP working with MFD, pancake cameras shooting with tripod and 50 ISO and bringing ton of lightig equiptment.

I think the AP business and style changes at this moment more to a Iwan Baan style, and was I to reinvest just for AP I would not go the MF way. I am with Stefan Marquardt using my canon for 99% of my commercial Architectural work, and using my IQ160 for personal work.

I think this is real life experience for European Architectural Photography, you can simply cover more grounds with the Canon as opposed to the MF back shooting style (always shooting the damn plexy for LCC). This is not a war between DSLR and MFD backs, a lot of professional photographers would have both and choose what is the best for the job. In my case I choose the Canon 99% of the time for AP. I choose the Canon for speed and flexibility AND the post production time is 1/3 of the Phase.

Willow I hope you can use this info. I think traditional AP is changing towards a more loos and flexible style aka Iwan Baan.

Cheers TES

I have the impression that in Europe they like the natural style better and in USA they likethe more artificial style more.Unfortuantly I live in Europe .

I have the impression that in Europe they like the natural style better and in USA they likethe more artificial style more.Unfortuantly I live in Europe .

That has been true to some degree going way back to when film ruled this genre. But understand I do almost all my shooting in the US largely for US clients (I sell a lot of stock to overseas magazines) and my US clients by and large love that look these days. I gave a talk to the AIA here recently about recent trends in AP and showed some IB work and they flat out loved it. Here is what one high profile architect client wrote me after the talk:

Insightful talk yesterday. Iwan Baan’s work is simply terrific – I checked out his website and recognized some of the images – thank you for the tip!

That has been true to some degree going way back to when film ruled this genre. But understand I do almost all my shooting in the US largely for US clients (I sell a lot of stock to overseas magazines) and my US clients by and large love that look these days. I gave a talk to the AIA here recently about recent trends in AP and showed some IB work and they flat out loved it. Here is what one high profile architect client wrote me after the talk:

Insightful talk yesterday. Iwan Baan’s work is simply terrific – I checked out his website and recognized some of the images – thank you for the tip!

One of his secret it that he only shoots very good architecture, he turns down assignments if he does not like the architecture or architect. That is also part of his trademark, architects should be almost grateful if he chose to photograph their building. He gets hyped by architects and is very difficult to access or assign, and then they want him even more, to the point that only IB can photograph this building.

I like his work very much, he is a very good photographer and I also think he is very clever in his business strategy too.

I think it was like having your portrait made by Avedon or Penn, and then you were somebody ;-)

I have started to do some architectural / interior photography and love it.

Are there any architectural / interior photographers here that cangive some advice to what kind of equipment that is best suited?

I have a Nikon D800E and a Contax645/P65+.

Is a tech camera the best route or is there other options that are "better"?

I only want advice from photographers who are doing this kind of work or has done it in the past.

Hopefully some of you guys can give me some good advice.

Thanks

Willow

I'm not an architectural photographer (hope you don't mind). But I have many architectural clients and a pretty wide view of many segments of the industry, through the eyes and experiences of our many amazing photographic clients.

Since you already have a D800 and a P65+, my assumption would be that you already utilize both where they are appropriate. And if you do so, then that is pretty typical of our clients, nearly all of whom shoot with medium format digital products, but - importantly - not exclusively. Often volume requirements and production schedules negate the slower process of shooting medium format and 35mm is the better fit. You probably already know this.

As far as your P65+ is concerned, my feeling is you're generally thinking along the right path in that technical cameras are your most obvious extension for architectural use. There are other choices, like the Hartblei solution, toting a small view camera, etc, but the overwhelming majority of our clients who shoot architecture with medium format digital backs (and this includes Hedrik Blessing) utilize technical cameras.

Pretty simply, it is an advantage to being able to correct perspective, and technical cameras do this easily and in a very small and lightweight package. Considering the larger, well, everything of medium format, this is a benefit. Shooting architecture with a technical camera is a slower process, and it is also an expensive one. There are some great lenses for this type of work - Rodenstock 32mm, Schneider 43mm, to name a few, and they are expensive. But when used appropriately, they deliver great image quality and when you're looking at what you captured, they never disappoint.

I think when users are pushing you toward 35mm, they feel like they're giving you good advice. You can get results close to medium format, and you can do it more productively and less expensively. The biggest advantages 35mm offers are more production. Less Expensive. But I ask you, whoever said that was the essence of photography? It's your money, spend it how you like. Make yourself happy. If you like shooting fewer photographs, make them better ones.

Just because some great architectural photographers shoot 35mm, that doesn't mean you shouldn't also take heart from the many others who also shoot medium format digital with a technical camera.

Best of luck to you. Remember - after all, your task is to thrill clients. But that starts with thrilling yourself. Do what you like.

I think when users are pushing you toward 35mm, they feel like they're giving you good advice. You can get results close to medium format, and you can do it more productively and less expensively. The biggest advantages 35mm offers are more production. Less Expensive. But I ask you, whoever said that was the essence of photography?

Steve HendrixCapture Integration

The essence of photography is what you do with the subject. When quality levels are so high as they are today with both high end 35mm DSLRs and MF digitalthe difference in quality is less relevant.Now that the quality of both systems exceeds what clients need a system that is more productive, faster and less expensive to buy and maintain is the best choice. On top of that the both the financial and time resources that are freed up by this choice can be put into the content of the image.A more productive and efficient system lets you concentrate more on the subject and variations around your concept and approach.

Just looking at live view over HDMI while moving people and things around when shooting staged interiors is so helpful, especially hen you need the camera right up against the wall to covr the view you want.

Wireless live view when sending your camera up on a pole....

The essence of photography is not about ultra HiFi and ultra+a-bit-more HiFi. It's about content, style, mood and light.

Clients, at least the big ones don't need to be thrilled. They work with the best as a norm, so it's not really thrilling. It's meeting the high standard they want.Image quality is there with both high end 35mm DSLR and MF. Clients standards are met through content and making the process of getting the images as little as possible like pulling teeth.

Having a small footprint/treading lightly as a photographer is also important. Many time with corporate, industrial and private clients the sooner you are done the better.It can cost more than the photographers fee to make a facility, building or luxury available for photography, sometimes 10 fold.

You can rest assured that a significant part of Iwan Baan's success if from his small agile kit and small footprint... he treads lightly and most likely gets great access as a result.

"One of his secret it that he only shoots very good architecture, he turns down assignments if he does not like the architecture or architect."

testfoto, you are right. I always feel, it´s is very easy to take good photos of good architecture - but much more difficult to take good images of uninteresting architecture (which is something one finds himself doing from time to time, if thats buys your bread and butter).I don´t want to imagine his photos of mediocre architecture.

to see some strong architecture images have a look at http://www.brigidagonzalez.de/ and particularly the "3Dminus1" gallery. really breathtaking images!

Really impressive images of Brigida González there, also like Iwan Baan's work. For that style I would choose a 135 system. However, I think the style requires a strong artistic talent and great confidence to become really good, so if it's not you it is hard style to take on. It also does not actually document the space that well, it's more about mood, so it depends on what the client wants. Someone may be offended but I think the more traditional strict style (where I would prefer a tech cam) has a stronger craft element to it, which makes it easier to learn and become good at.

I am just guessing, but I would imagine, the architects (like hadid...) commission the usual suspects /trad. AP to get the new building documented properly - and only as a interessting supplement/experiment get them then done from somebody like Baan in a different style. But as I said - that just a guess.

Sure that the only digital camera you need is a 35mm nikon, sure of what constitutes commercial art, fine art, personal art.

Sure that that no client can tell the difference between a Nikon or a tech camera, or for that matter any camera.

Sure that interesting imagery requires a "small footprint".

Sure that spending half your online time dissing a brand and a camera format to suit some kind of strange purpose is actually interesting.

Me, I'm not really sure about anything. Other than I know the more I offer, the more complete my production company, the deeper my investment, pre production, on set production, post production not only doesn't go unnoticed, it secures me work.

Why . . . because that's what clients say.

I look at Chris Barrett's work and I know that when I was an Art Director and if I was commissioning an architectural photographer, Chris would be high on my list. Because he can shoot straight angles, make exact but beautiful colors, show my building, my product in a professional atmosphere that looks better than "real" life.

As an Art Director I usually found it's a lot easier for someone like Chris to shoot highly commercial images, then let loose, let a few bystanders amble on through a image, walk around and hand hold a camera AND still give me two styles of imagery, than it is for someone with a photojournalistic background to multitask and shoot detailed commercial imagery.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think I know that why I like working a medium format file more than a 35mm file and I could explain it but it just opens up another chance for someone that's "sure" to try and prove me wrong.

Actually I am sure of one thing.

If I respect someone's work, I respect their way of doing it.

If Chris shot everything with an old polaroid I'd respect that.

Along with Chris, one of best architectural photographers I know shoots most of his imagery with medium format backs and tech cameras.

The essence of photography is what you do with the subject. When quality levels are so high as they are today with both high end 35mm DSLRs and MF digitalthe difference in quality is less relevant.Now that the quality of both systems exceeds what clients need a system that is more productive, faster and less expensive to buy and maintain is the best choice. On top of that the both the financial and time resources that are freed up by this choice can be put into the content of the image.A more productive and efficient system lets you concentrate more on the subject and variations around your concept and approach.

Just looking at live view over HDMI while moving people and things around when shooting staged interiors is so helpful, especially hen you need the camera right up against the wall to covr the view you want.

Wireless live view when sending your camera up on a pole....

The essence of photography is not about ultra HiFi and ultra+a-bit-more HiFi. It's about content, style, mood and light.

Clients, at least the big ones don't need to be thrilled. They work with the best as a norm, so it's not really thrilling. It's meeting the high standard they want.Image quality is there with both high end 35mm DSLR and MF. Clients standards are met through content and making the process of getting the images as little as possible like pulling teeth.

Having a small footprint/treading lightly as a photographer is also important. Many time with corporate, industrial and private clients the sooner you are done the better.It can cost more than the photographers fee to make a facility, building or luxury available for photography, sometimes 10 fold.

You can rest assured that a significant part of Iwan Baan's success if from his small agile kit and small footprint... he treads lightly and most likely gets great access as a result.

I think you mis-managed my point, concerning essence. I never said the essence of photography was ultra hi fi. I only said it was not producing more shots for less expense. My point was that none of this is really the essence of photography. And that is pretty much all I meant. And it was intended seriously, but also whimsically, from the perspective of the importance of throwing the rule book out.

You also miss my point about thrills. If the photographer isn't thrilled, the client won't be in most cases, either. Or at least, not as much.

Finally, your point about Iwan Baan's success is noted. His success is perhaps partly from his small, agile kit and footprint. But this is about someone else. The thread wasn't started by Iwan Baan. While some of the input on what Willow should shoot with is useful, most of it neglects the main subject, seems to ignore the equipment he already owns, as well as the questions he's actually asked. It makes me wonder why photographers would seem so intent on putting someone in a box (their box).

If the idea of shooting architecture with a P65+ (which he already owns) and a technical camera was so outrageous, then you would be acting as a good samaritan. But the fact that many successful photographers (well, besides Iwaan Baak), do use medium format digital with technical cameras for architecture work, makes me question the dogma.

I look at this with shooting styles and what you are willing to make sacrifices on. Iwan Baan's shooting style means that the best camera system for him is a DSLR. But what about those who shoot slow and methodical, in that case a Tech Camera is the best solution. You can lie to yourself or say yes, but DSLRs do the trick as well for less money.

But I ask, if you are so content to sacrifice here, where does it end. Are you now more likely to sacrifice with the amount of lighting you need, or the staging, or getting the best composition? I think eventually yes; life wears you down and if you allow that mind set to develop, it will rule you. The best shooters I look at all shoot with the best cameras for their style. (Look at Chris, he does not make a living from shooting video and already owned a 5D II, but he bought a Red. Why, because it is the best.) Sure, no client will ever tell the difference, but they have that mind set of never compromising regardless of how small the issue is. Maybe that is why they are the best, because of that mindset.

Personally I never want to get into the mind set of settling for good enough. I know I would never want someone to look at my work and say "he is good enough."

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture." Arnold Newman“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.” William Faulkner